This document is intended to detail and elaborate upon the intent
for Senate Joint Resolution 11 (SJ 11). This explanation will
be provided to legislators reviewing and voting upon SJ 11.
One could presume that the Legislature agrees with this
explanation. This explanation will address the introduced
version of SJ 11.

Qualifications to comment

The reader may find the explanations contained here more acceptable
with more information about the writer.

I am the elected President of the Montana Shooting Sports
Association (MSSA), a Montana nonprofit corporation founded to be
the leading political advocate for Montana gun owners. In that
capacity, MSSA has been very successful, very likely the most
successful such entity in the United States. MSSA has
originated and supported 67 legislative bills and resolutions that
have become public policy in Montana, including one change in the
Montana Constitution (the right to hunt, fish, and trap). I
have conceived and written most of those.

I grew up on a working Montana cattle ranch, attended Montana
schools, and served three years in the U.S. Army (1966-1969).
Despite extensive travel (I once lived in Europe for three years), I
remain strongly a cultural Montanan, with a Montana-centric
worldview.

I am an ongoing student of the law, especially of laws related to
the cherished and constitutionally-reserved right of the people to
keep and bear arms, or right to keep OR bear arms as the Montana
Constitution phrases it (emphasis added). I am the author of
the book Gun Laws of Montana, now in its fourth printing, which has
come to be the accepted standard on that subject. I am
accepted in state and federal courts as an expert concerning use of
force, self defense, firearm safety, children and guns, and related
topics. I have been a consulting or trial expert in about 50
cases that connect with the right to keep and bear arms. I am
an active firearms instructor, having graduated over 5,000 students
from day-long classes in which part of the curricula is to explain
what the right to keep or bear arms means, and how that has been
defined by laws and interpreted under the U.S. and Montana
constitutions. I have testified before legislative committees
scores (maybe hundreds) of times, explaining topics that relate to
the right to keep and bear arms. My first appearance as a
witness before a legislative committee was in 1971, the most recent
in 2017, a span of nearly a half century.

Development of SJ 11

SJ 11 is intended to provide an authoritative definition of what a
critical phrase used in Article II, Section 12 of the Montana
Constitution means. That phrase declares that the right to
keep or bear arms "shall not be called in question." It may
seem obvious to the reader what this important phrase means, but in
the official world, it may not be so obvious. My research
reveals no Montana case law authoritatively defining this phrase
(more about this later in this document). Information from the
1884, 1889, and 1972 constitutional conventions shed just a bit
light on this, but not much and not enough for a thorough
understanding or a fullsome definition.

Apparently, this phrase was first used in business charters in the
1700s. It appears to have been used to prohibit judicial
scrutiny of internal company policies and actions. The phrase
"shall not be called in question" is, of course, similar to the
"shall not be infringed" as used in the U.S. Constitution.
(See attached Appendix C for the constitutional provisions
of most U.S. states.) Both the U.S. and Montana constitutions,
it would seem, are very strong prohibitions against curtailment of
the reserved right by public policy or government actors. The
essential question is, how strong?"

Having found no relevant judicial definition of this unique Montana
phrase, I decided to inquire among citizens what they believe the
phrase “shall not be called in question” means.. By email, I
asked about 1,000 gun owners to tell me what they thought "shall not
be called in question", as used in the Montana Constitution, means
to them. Many responded. Clips of their answers are
attached as Appendix A. For the most part, their
answers centered around "Beyond discussion."

Finding these comments interesting, but not as helpful as I needed
in terms of a legal definition, I consulted attorneys. I had
phone or email discussions with some serious and respected legal
scholars, attorneys in small practice, local and distant, and
others.

Since "shall not be called in question" originated in Montana in the
1884 territorial constitutional convention, I consulted the Webster
Unabridged Dictionary of 1884 for period correct definitions.
See Appendix B.

Based on all of these discussions, and upon my experience studying
the law and crafting public policy, I wrote SJ 11.

Senate Joint Resolution 11, item by itemThe WHEREASes

(Note to the reader: I have copied and inserted each paragraph
of SJ 11 ahead of each explanatory comment so the reader need not
shuffle between documents to follow the explanation of SJ 11
provisions. The material taken directly from SJ 11 is in italics
to make it easier for the reader to pick that out and thereby follow
the explanations. The comments about each paragraph begin with
“COMMENT:” in bold to make those easier for the reader to
identify.)

First WHEREAS. “WHEREAS, The current language at Article
II, Section 12 of the Montana Constitution was first articulated
in the Montana Territorial Constitution of 1884; and”

COMMENT: In my search for original intent, I have
learned that there is no electronic version of the transcripts of
the Montana Territorial Constitutional Convention of 1884 (at least
a diligent Internet search, and inquires of the Montana Supreme
Court Library, the Montana Historical Society, and the University of
Montana Law Library have not located an electronic version).
However, in the 1884 convention is where the phrase "shall not be
called in question" first became a part of constitutional law in
Montana. There are handwritten notes from that
convention. Volunteer researchers for this effort examined the
handwritten notes from the 1884 constitutional convention at the
Montana Historical Society and the University of Montana Law Library
and found no discussion whatsoever about the phrase “shall not be
called in question.” The language proposed by the 1884 Bill of
Rights Committee for (then) Article I, Section 13 of the 1884
constitution was adopted by the full convention with a vote of 33
for and 3 against.

Second WHEREAS. “WHEREAS, This language was repeated in the
Montana Statehood Constitution of 1889, which language was also
approved by the other several states via Congress; and”

COMMENT: While the phrase "shall not be called in
question" was repeated exactly in the 1889, statehood constitution,
there was a minor change in language concerning the exclusion of
carrying concealed weapons from the protected right, a change not
relevant to this discussion. It is worth mention that this
exclusion, which was present in the 1884 constitution, was a
cultural issue at that time. The cultural standard in 1884 was
that if you were a manly man, you wore your gun exposed where
everyone could see it, and those concealing firearms were sneaks or
neer-do-wells, not to be sanctioned with a
constitutionally-protected right, although that culture has
changed. It is also worth note that the language of the 1889
statehood constitution was approved by the other several states via
their agent, Congress, upon Montana's admission to statehood.
There is no discussion whatsoever concerning the relevant phrase in
the transcript of 1889 statehood constitutional convention.

Third WHEREAS. “WHEREAS, This exact language was repeated
verbatim by the Montana Constitutional Convention of 1972, which
was approved by the electors of Montana; and”

COMMENT: The Montana Constitution was largely rewritten
by the constitutional convention of 1972. Much was retained
from 1884, but much was revised or added. However, the
provision that is now Article II, Section 12, was adopted verbatim
as it had been in the 1889 constitution. Unlike in the 1889
convention, the 1972 convention did discuss this protection of
right, although there was very little discussion about the phrase
"shall not be called in question." More than one delegate did
assert that the language used to protect this important right was
the strongest language and strongest protection of any existing
state, stronger even than the protection for the right reserved by
the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. ("...the
strongest statement on the right to bear arms of any of the 50
states of the United States." - Delegate Blaylock "The
broadest, most liberal concept with respect to the right to keep and
bear arms that exists anywhere in any of the several states of the
United States." - Delegate Toole)

Fourth WHEREAS. “WHEREAS, There is no authoritative
definition existing of the phrase "shall not be called in
question" that is applied in Article II, Section 12; and”

COMMENT: As explained above Lexis, Westlaw, and Google
searches disclose no authoritative definition exists for the phrase
"shall not be called in question" used to reserve and protect this
fundamental right in the Montana Constitution.

Fifth WHEREAS. “WHEREAS, The phrase "shall not be called in
question" is understood to be the strongest form of prohibition
that the framers could imagine and express using polite language;
and”

COMMENT: The discussion from the 1972 constitutional
convention says this in different words.

Sixth WHEREAS. “WHEREAS, The phrase "shall not be called in
question" is understood to be a prohibition imposed by the
electors of Montana specifically upon government policy,
government entities, and government actors; and”

COMMENT: It is a bedrock principle of our accepted
political theory that all political power is vested in
individuals. This is even declared overtly at Article II,
Section 1 of the Montana Constitution. These individuals,
those who are electors, delegate some measure of their personal
political power to engender Montana government. With that
delegation in the Constitution comes restrictions, such as Article
II, Section 12, reserving to the people the right to keep or bear
arms. While some constitutional rights reservations may impose
restraints on private individuals, or collections of private
individuals, whether or not Article II, Section 12 restrains the
conduct of non-governmental persons or entities will be left for
another day. Certainly, this reservation of authority is
designed to restrain public policy, and to prohibit interference
with a fundamental right by governmental entities and governmental
actors.

Seventh WHEREAS. “WHEREAS, In response to a question about
what the phrase “shall not be called in question” meant as used in
the proposed Article II, Section 12 of the Montana Constitution in
the 1972 Constitutional Convention, Delegate and Chairman of the
Bill of Rights Committee Wade Dahood responded that the phrase
meant “that the right shall remain inviolate and shall not be
questioned by any person in authority.” (Transcript of the 1972
Montana Constitutional Convention, Volume 5, Page 1739); and”

COMMENT: This is the most direct and informative
comment found in all research about the phrase "shall not be called
in question."

Eighth WHEREAS. “WHEREAS, The maxims of jurisprudence found
at Title 1, chapter 3, part 2 are examples of guidance in
interpretation of laws.”

COMMENT: Legislative opinion and guidance in
interpretation of law certainly exists and may be considered to be
determinative.

The Resolves

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA: That the phrase "Shall
not be called in question," as used at Article II, section 12, of
the Montana constitution, is defined as follows:”

COMMENT: In the vacuum where no authoritative
definition of this critical phrase exists, it is appropriate for the
people, the enactors of the Constitution, via their elected
representatives in the Legislature, to provide such a
definition. How and when such a definition will be needed or
applied remains to be seen. As is said in the gun culture
about firearms, better to have it and not need it than to need it
and not have it.

Subsection (1). “(1) Any impairment, restriction, or
curtailment of a person's rights under Article II, section 12, of
the Montana constitution by public policy or governmental actors
may not be done unless such impairment, restriction, or
curtailment survives an examination more restrictive than strict
scrutiny, a level of restraint identified as maximum scrutiny and
which meets the criteria provided in subsection (2).”

COMMENT: A standard is evolving by which governmental
impairment of constitutionally reserved fundamental rights must be
evaluated for propriety and authority. The highest of the
evolving standards is called "strict scrutiny." To pass a
strict scrutiny test, an offending regulation or action is said to
require satisfaction of a two-prong test, compelling state interest
and least restrictive means. Given how close to absolute the
protection of the right to keep or bear arms is understood to be,
assessing impairments to that right appears to need and deserve a
test more rigorous than even strict scrutiny, a test identified here
as "maximum scrutiny."

COMMENT: The test of maximum scrutiny includes six
required elements, and is defined as:

Subsection (2)(a). “(a) A government interest is
actually proven and so complete that without impairment,
restriction, or curtailment human lives will actually and
imminently be at serious risk, or be lost, as demonstrated by
current facts in evidence and by clear articulation;”

COMMENT: (a) This is a tightened and qualified
compelling state interest. First, the government interest must
be proven; it cannot be simply alleged. Such proof must be
supported by contemporary facts in hand. Second, the public
interest must involve human lives at serious risk among the public,
not hypothetically or in some undetermined future, and not with a
vague allusion to public safety.

Subsection (2)(b). “(b) Any impairment, restriction,
or curtailment is accomplished by a means that cannot be more
narrowly limited to achieve its objective as to geography, polity,
objects, topics, time frame, societal or political conditions, or
class of people affected;”

COMMENT: (b) This is a tightened and qualified
least restrictive means, which some scholars believe includes a
requirement that an impairment be narrowly tailored to achieve its
purpose.

Subsection (2)(c). “(c) There is convincing evidence
that the impairment, restriction, or curtailment will accomplish
the intended purpose;”

COMMENT: (c) This is to clarify that an
impairment of this right will actually accomplish what it is
intended to accomplish, and is not just wishful thinking.
Again, evidence to support actual accomplishment is required.

Subsection (2)(d). “(d) There is convincing evidence
that the impairment, restriction, or curtailment will have no
consequence in restricting the free action of citizens beyond its
intended purpose; “

COMMENT: (d) This is to clarify that an
impairment will not have unintended consequences, and that any
unintended consequences that can be reasonably foreseen will
constitutionally disqualify the impairment. This test may also
be related to narrowly tailored.

Subsection (2)(e). “(e) Any impairment, restriction,
or curtailment is not a prior restraint; and”

COMMENT: (e) A prior restraint is one which
prohibits or restricts the exercise of a constitutionally-protected
right in advance on the theory that if not prohibited the exercise
some one or more persons will misuse or abuse that right. One
classic example is the restriction of freedom of the press by
prohibiting publication of troop movements during wartime.
Another example often misused is "You can't shout 'Fire' in a
crowded theater." That's simply not true, but a person may be
punished afterwards if the person shouts "Fire" when there is no
smoke or fire. What is intolerable is to put duct tape over
the mouths of everyone entering a theater on the theory that if the
theatergoers are not rendered speechless then some fool will surely
and improperly shout "Fire." That would be prohibited prior
restraint. As with theaters, the proper remedy is not
prohibition of rights exercise, but punishment afterwards for rights
abuse.

Subsection (2)(f). “(f) The impairment, restriction,
or curtailment is permissible even though in conformance with
subsections (a) through (e).”

COMMENT: (f) Constitutional scholar and law
professor Eugene Volokh makes a persuasive argument in a
Pennsylvania Law Review article (http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/scrutiny.htm)
that it is possible for a rights impairment to pass the tests of
strict scrutiny yet still be constitutionally impermissible.
This subsection is intended, consistent with professor Volokh's
argument, to empower a court find a restraint on the right to keep
or bear arms impermissible even if it should pass the other tests
described above. It is a final option to protect the right the
people have reserved to themselves, unlikely to be needed, but made
available nonetheless.

Section (3). “(3) Keeping or bearing arms, which
shall not be called in question,”

COMMENT: Section (3). To what does "shall not be
called in question" actually apply? In the event there may be
any confusion, it includes all the items and activities listed in
this section, and likely more essentially dependent activities or
items not named.

Section 3(b). "(b) includes but is not limited to both
loaded and unloaded arms, ammunition, ammunition components, and
arms accessories; and"

Section 3(c). "(c) does not allow any registration,
licensing, special taxation, or fees."

COMMENT: These elaborations should be self-explanatory
and are intended to be construed and extended broadly in favor of
individual liberty.

Section (4). “(4) The use of arms is an essential and
protected child of the protections assured for the right to keep
or bear arms, and included within that protection.
Notwithstanding such protection, the use of arms may be regulated
by statute only, and only if such regulation is not a prior
restraint, is narrowly drawn, is essential for public safety,
achieves its stated purpose, is free from unintended consequences,
does not inhibit self defense, and does not unreasonably burden
hunting opportunity.”

COMMENT: Section (4). In addition to keeping or
bearing arms, there may be a third and corollary activity that is
also under the umbrella of this protection. That is, using
arms. Using arms seems to warrant its own and slightly
different set of rules for when a restriction on using arms is and
is not permissible. For example, an existing Montana statute
allows the punishment of a person following the person's discharge
of a firearm inside the limits of a city or town unless that
discharge is done in self defense or at an established shooting
range. Because this example appears sensible, then perhaps a
lesser, yet defined, threshold must be articulated for tolerable
restrictions on using arms.

What is "using" a firearm in this context? As an accepted
expert, I say that pointing a loaded or unloaded firearm (Firearm
Safety Rule #1: All firearms are loaded.) directly at another
person or discharging a firearm, are "using" firearms. I say
that keeping” (obtaining; possessing) or “bearing” (carrying or
having with one), transporting, displaying, trading, or bartering
firearms are not "using" firearms in this context.

Given the maximum scrutiny required for curtailment of keeping or
bearing arms detailed in SJ 11 and above, the barrier for limitation
on using arms must be high, and is defined in Section (4).

"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Secretary of State send copies
of this resolution to the Montana Supreme Court and to the Montana
Attorney General."

COMMENT: This Resolve is intended to help assure that
this definition is well established in the public domain.

- End -

Page break in printed copy ---------------------------------------

Appendix A - an inquiry about what the subject phrase
means to the public

Question posed: "What does 'shall not be called in question'
mean, as used in Article II, Section 12 of the Montana
Constitution?" Responses:

Beyond discussion.

The right shall not be questioned, it is written in stone, factual
and eternal.

Shall not be challenged.

It is without ability to be challenged.

Shall not be challenged, infringed, set-aside, circumscribed or
revoked by any person, business, institution, or governmental
entity.

It is not a debatable right. It exists by Constitutional provision
and cannot be altered or rescinded except by Constitutional
provision.

There will be NO discussion on this right.

Not be allowed under any circumstance to be considered for any
limitation.

The reserved right should not be challenged; in practical terms
there should be no limitation or restriction.

There can be no question or challenge to the premise.

They could have added "under ANY circumstances" to keep the lawyerly
type out of any misinterpretation.

That no government or private entities can even suggest that the
right to keep and bear arms be challenged or minimized.

May not be challenged.

Not called into question to me means it is "not debatable".

Shall not be questioned - PERIOD. By anyone.

Shall not be infringed on.

Means to me that it is considered indisputable.

To me it means that from that moment forward it shall not be brought
up again, period. Discussion is over. Not to be changed, not
to even be talked about changing. It is as it is for all time.

No doubts shall be raised (as to the veracity of whatever is being
discussed).

Shall not be questionable.

There can be no debate or doubt concerning an individual’s absolute
right to keep or bear arms (at their own discretion).

To me it means that the law that is on the books can't be changed by
external circumstances.

Shall not be questioned. Shall not be changed!

Cannot be restricted by another article, law, or regulation.

Shall not be taken away. Cannot be revoked. Cannot be
ignored.

That the right is unquestionable, a clear truth that cannot be
equivocated.

Will not be up for debate.

Any legislation that is proposed that would hinder or violate the
keeping and bearing of arms of any Montanan would be considered an
act of treason or sedition or a conspiracy to commit the before
mentioned against the people of Montana.

I believe it concedes a God given right that one is born with and
thus, needs no interpretation.

I see it as "The End of the Conversation" and for me that is it.

1) to cause someone or something to be evaluated; to examine or
reexamine the qualifications or value of someone or something.
(idioms.thefreedictionary.com)
2) to cause doubts about something: (“call into question” in
British English Cambridge dictionary)

To me that phrase means that no government entity can abridge the
right of the citizenry to bear arms.

No laws may ever be enacted which restricts this right in anyway,
nor shall infringement be allowed by other individuals,
organizations, or Government.

Will not be challenged.

Cannot be challenged or diminished by any person or authority.

NO questions can be asked. Questions are not allowed.
The statement stands by itself.

Without a doubt, unquestionable, firm, resolved.

That the referenced right will not be disagreed with, challenged,
usurped or legislated against. That it is an absolute.

No law, regulation or policy may be enacted that interferes in any
way with our right.

Shall not be infringed means do not do it. Shall not be called
into question means do not even talk about it.

A right that needs no further interpretation.

The item that "shall not be called into question" is an absolute
right, not subject to modification by the legislature. (or any
government authority).

That there be no doubt.

Other synonyms that come to mind: Inalienable, inviolable,
sacrosanct.

Totally void of any doubt. Nothing or no one can remove the
right.

Self evident as proper and correct and therefore not to be denied.

It means, that if a person is possessing or carrying a firearm, they
need NOT present a reason or explanation to ANYONE.

Shall be “accepted as it is written” and not second guessed as to
its meaning or challenged as to what other meanings could be
applied.

A "bright line", in legal term.

Arguments contrary to the right will not be entertained by the
court.

No “hair-splitting”. No, “relativism”. No
“technicalities”. No “loopholes”. NO NOTHING. This is a
right that covers EVERYTHING about firearm ownership and possession
wherever I chose to go.

Shall not be disputed.

It simply means that no one can legitimately deny that the people of
Montana, the right either to keep or to bear arms.

Shall never be considered to even be questioned whether or not it is
correct on its face.

That this right cannot be challenged in any way.

“shall not be called into question” means that it is not to be
challenged, no questions ask, that’s it, done.

Settled codified law in agreement with natural law, where all
natural rights come from.

"shall be no inquiry into the validity" I'm not sure how make make
the original statement more self evident.

Questioned, Express doubt about. So in context, one must not doubt
that we have the right to bear arms.

To me it seems simple, "shall not be called in question" = It is
every citizens right to keep or bear arms, for the listed reasons.

My interpretation of that phrase would be "shall not be challenged".

There is no standing to consider any other possibility.

Don't even think about touching this.

"shall not be called into question" synonyms: Unquestionable;
Unchangeable; Untouchable; Unalterable; Indisputable; Irrevocable;
Absolute; "Don't even begin to think about messing with..."; Don't
mess with this!

Shall never be controlled, impeded, or rescinded by any level of
government.

Is absolute and decided.

My take on it is that there is no argument that anybody (government
or otherwise) can make that will change the absolute right of any
individual to keep and/or bear arms.

"shall not be called into question." = cannot be addressed in a
court of law

No if, ands or buts. Don't let the Gov even question it.

Shall not be challenged.

No government official, authority, or entity shall infringe upon
this right, because to do so essentially questions the fact that
this is a right we have reserved to ourselves.

These rights shall not be infringed.

A "question" arises when two or more parties to a contract cannot
come to an agreement and seek a remedy thru the judiciary. No
government under the jurisdiction of the Montana Constitution will
have legal standing if any properly passed resolution encroaches
upon this right and subsequently is challenged in a court of
competent jurisdiction.

To cast doubt about something.

I read "shall not be called into question" to mean in no chance is
the "right to keep OR bear arms" shall ever have time wasted on the
matter.

It is what it is and there is no room for discussion.

The government should not have further discussions about it. The
matter is settled and is not to be brought up again.

This is set in stone. Can never be challenged.

It means it can not be changed in any way.

No, this right is NOT subject to "reasonable" regulation.

The phrase "shall not be called into question" means the RIGHT OF A
FREE PERSON to keep or bear arms cannot even be brought up FOR
DISCUSSION. It is beyond discussion.

In plan English, it means "shall not be challenged". As in,
argue about whatever you want but when it comes to this right, it
will not be challenged. It is set in stone, unless the
constitution is changed, then the stone is reshaped.

"shall not be called in question" is the same as in the federal bill
of rights "shall not be infringed".

Above interference by any agency of government. Or anything else
that might occur.

I agree with the "Cambridge dictionary": "to cause doubts
about something".

Not changed or brought to to be changed.

I think of it as "Res ipsa loquitur", that is, the rightness of the
doctrine speaks for itself, is self-evident.

The underlying right has universal application and precedence over
legislation or other acts of government, regardless of the rationale
for the latter. Narrow limitations on exercising the right
don’t enfranchise limitations on the right as a whole; inalienable
and incontestable.

At least 'Fundamental' and possibly somewhere between that and
'absolute'.

A permanent right that cannot be taken away.

Self-advocating and an inalienable right that cannot be questioned.

Rights that are irrefutable and cannot be challenged by anyone at
any time.

It is very simple English. In other words "No one should
question of a person's right to keep and or bear arms."

Not to be denied by the politicians.

".... into question ...." is directed at the legislative
process. It simply says that this "question" can not be
brought up in the legislature or any initiative/referendum effecting
the legislature.

This shall not be changed.

It is indisputable.

The RKBA cannot be challenged or changed without a constitutional
amendment.

There is no question, and can be no question as to the right being
conferred.

AMERICAN DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE BY NOAH WEBSTER, LL.D.,
PUBLISHED BY G. & C. MERRIAM & CO., STATE STREET,
SPRINGFIELD, MASS., 1884.

Question (kwest'yun, 66), n. [origin omitted]
1. The act of asking; interrogation; inquiry;
examination; as to examine by question and answer.
2. Discussion; debate; hence, dispute; verbal contest.
3. Examination with reference to a decisive result;
investigation; and specifically, judicial or official inquiry;
formal investigation as before a tribunal; trial. "He that was
in question for the robbery. Shak.
4. Hence, examination under influence of bodily pain;
torture. Blackstone

5. That which is asked; an inquiry; an interrogatory; a
query.
But this question asked puts me in doubt. Milton.
6. Hence, a subject of investigation or examination;
theme of inquiry; matter to be inquired into or respecting.In question, in debate; in the course of examination
or discussion; as, the matter or point in question.

Alabama
“That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself
and the state.”
Article 1, Section 26

Alaska
“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be
denied or infringed by the state or political subdivision of the
State.”
Article 1, Section 19

Arizona
“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of
himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.”
Article 2, Section 26.

Arkansas
“The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep for their
common defense.”
Article 2, Section 5

Colorado
“The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his
home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto
legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein
contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying
concealed weapons.”
Article II, Section 13.

Connecticut
“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and
the state.”
Article 1, Section 15

Delaware
“A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of
self, family, home and state, and for hunting and recreational use.”
Article 1, §20.

Florida
“(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of
themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be
infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated
by law.
Article 1, Section 8

Georgia
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe
the manner in which arms may be borne.”
Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph VIII

Hawaii
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.”
Article 1, Section 15

Idaho
“The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall
not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of
laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person, nor
prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for
crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent
passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of
firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of
legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose
licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or
possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the
confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the
commission of a felony.”
Article 1, Section 11.

Illinois
“Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual
citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Section 22, Article I of the Illinois Bill of Rights

Indiana
“The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of
themselves and the State.”
Article 1 Section 32.

Iowa
Iowa has no State Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
However, the Iowa Constitution does guarantee certain inalienable
rights—among which are “defending life” and “protecting property.”
Article 1, Section 1

Kansas
“The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and :
security; but standing armies in time of peace, are dangerous to •
liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in
strict subordination to the civil power.”
Kansas Bill of Rights Section 4

Kentucky
“All men are by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent
and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: … 7) the right
to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state, subject to
the power of the general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons
from carrying concealed weapons.”
Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph 7

Louisiana
“The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and
shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be
subject to strict scrutiny.”
Old one – “The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not
be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of
laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.”
LA State Constitution – Article 1, Section 11

Maine
“Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right
shall never be questioned.”
Article 1, Section 16

Maryland
none

Massachusetts
“The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common
defense. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty,
they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the
legislature, and the military power shall always be held in an exact
subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.”
Declaration of Rights, Article 17

Michigan
“Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of
himself and the state.”
Article 1, Section 6

Minnesota
none

Mississippi
“The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his
home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto
legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the
legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.”
Article 3 Section 12

Missouri
“That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of
his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of
the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify
the wearing of concealed weapons.”
Article 1, Section 23

Montana
“The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own
home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when
thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but
nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of
concealed weapons.”
Article 2, Section 12

Nebraska
“All persons … have certain … rights, among these are … the right to
keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home,
and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational
use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be
denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.”
Nebraska Constitution art. 1, sec. 1

Nevada
“Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other
lawful purposes.”
Article 1, Section 11, Paragraph 1

New Hampshire
“All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of
themselves, their families, their property, and the state.”
Part 1, Article 2-a

New Jersey
none

New Mexico
“No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms
for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use
and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to
permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county
shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and
bear arms.”
Article II, Section 6

New York
none

North Carolina
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed, and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to
liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military should be
kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed
weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal
statutes against that practice.”
Article 1, Section 30

North Dakota
“All individuals . . . have certain inalienable rights, among which
are . . . to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person,
family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting,
recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be
infringed.”
Article 1, Section l

Ohio
“The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and
security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to
liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in
strict subordination to the civil power.”
Article 1, Section 4

Oklahoma
“The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his
home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when
thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited, but nothing
herein contained shall prevent the legislature from regulating the
carrying of weapons.”
Article 2, Section 26.

Oregon
“The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms for the
defense of themselves and the state, but the military shall be kept
in strict subordination to the civil power.”
Article 1, Section 27

Pennsylvania
“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and
the State shall not be questioned.”
Article 1, Section 21

Rhode Island
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.”
Article 1, Section 22

South Carolina
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.”
Article 1, Section 20

South Dakota
“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and
the state shall not be denied.”
Article VI, Section 24

Tennessee
“That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear
arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power,
by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent
crime.”
Article 1, Section 26

Texas
“Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the
lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall
have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to
prevent crime.”
Article 1, Section 23

Utah
“The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for
security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the State
as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but
nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the
lawful use of arms.”
Article 1, Section 6

Vermont
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of
themselves and the State as standing armies in time of peace are
dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the
military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed
by the civil power.”
Chapter 1, Article 16

Virginia
“That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people,
trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free
state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace,
should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the
military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by,
the civil power.”
Article 1, Section 13

Washington
“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of
himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”
Article 1, Section 24

West Virginia
A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of
self, family, home, and state, and for lawful hunting and
recreational use.
Art. 3, Sec. 22

Wisconsin
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,
defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.
Art. 1, § 25

Wyoming
“The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and
the state shall not be denied.”
Article 1, Section 24